USA V. GONZALEZ-REYES

Circuit 9Apr 15, 2026

Split Score

SplitScore: 65/100

Case Summary

Disposition

Affirmed

The Ninth Circuit upheld the district court’s refusal to dismiss an illegal-reentry indictment against Higinio Gonzalez-Reyes. Assuming he had exhausted remedies and been denied judicial review, the panel held that his prior California rape conviction categorically matches the federal generic definition of rape, making him an aggravated felon and defeating his § 1326(d) collateral attack.

View Full Opinion Document (PDF)

Circuit Split Identified

Legal Issue

Whether expedited-removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. § 1228(b) provide a meaningful administrative vehicle for a non-citizen to challenge the legal basis of removability, such that the exhaustion requirement in § 1326(d)(1) can or cannot be satisfied.

Circuit Positions

Circuit 3Circuit 4Circuit 5Circuit 7Circuit 9(this circuit)

Expedited-removal proceedings do NOT give aliens a forum to contest the aggravated-felony determination; exhaustion under § 1326(d)(1) is therefore unavailable/satisfied.

Circuit 11

Expedited-removal proceedings DO allow legal challenges to the aggravated-felony finding; an alien must exhaust § 1326(d)(1).

Conflict Summary

Several circuits hold that because § 1228(b) fast-track proceedings give an alien no avenue to contest the legal determination that a prior conviction is an aggravated felony, administrative remedies are 'unavailable' and the exhaustion prong of § 1326(d) is deemed satisfied. The Eleventh Circuit takes the opposite view, concluding that an alien can raise legal objections and therefore must exhaust. Seventh Circuit precedent is internally inconsistent, recognizing both views in different panels.

Parties & Counsel

Parties

Appellant:Higinio Alejandro Gonzalez-Reyes
Appellee:United States of America

Legal Counsel

Appellant:Lynette M. Belsky, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Defenders of San Diego Inc., San Diego, California
Appellee:Andrew Y. Chiang (argued), Julie A. Bauman, Assistant U.S. Attorneys; Daniel E. Zipp, Chief, Appellate Section; Adam Gordon, United States Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, San Diego, California